37 ms·

Changes are incremental in general, because change takes time, at least if you want change with not too many unwanted side effects. Suppose you would say, from

Changes are incremental in general, because change takes time, at least if you want change with not too many unwanted side effects. Suppose you would say, from tomorrow on, it is totally forbidden to burn any fuel. Most activities would stall and as a result people would starve.

ericmay 4y ago
I’m not sure I was suggesting anywhere that we shouldn’t pursue incremental change. Moreso we should pursue incremental change that the public can get behind (private jet emissions charges and such) before pursuing incremental change that the public is hesitant to make when people suggesting the change are the biggest polluters comparatively. Honestly just think about it. You really think it’s fruitful to try to start solving this problem by convincing someone that they need to no longer use a gas stove when “insert billionaire” is flying around on a private jet? It’s a non-starter. It reeks of injustice even if it’s the right thing to do and the public will instead of cooperate will fight tooth and nail until perceived justice is accomplished.
- nuancebydefault 4y ago
  Sorry i guess i misunderstood. Okay the incrementalness is not the thing. The thing is more, the injustice, the unevenness so to say. Well, I think we should not try to solve the injustice problem and the environmental problem with the same measures. For every rule, there will be people that break it, does that mean nobody should follow that rule? Also, for every form or quantity of pollution, there are heavier forms. The jet owner will say that the old-aeroplane-collector or a war in a neighboring country pollutes more. My point is, following that kind of reasoning, it will be almost impossible to take any action.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I get it. But what I’m saying is that when you walk up to someone and say “sorry turn off that gas stove” and then they go and read an article like this [1] you will not just get inaction you’ll get outright action against solving the problem. So yea, we won’t see much in the way of serious action because the general public does not see the justice in making changes or sacrifices even though they should and will bear the worst of the consequences. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/01/private-jet-sales-likely-to-reach-highest-ever-level-this-year-report-says https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/01/private-jet-sa...
    - nuancebydefault 4y ago
      You are right, it is even infuriating. It is also infuriating that rich people are allowed to build a huge machine that is set to self destruct soon after take off, generating multi tons of co2 and other air, water and soil pollution. Still,climate change is a problem worth trying to solve.

ericmay 4y ago

I’m not sure I was suggesting anywhere that we shouldn’t pursue incremental change. Moreso we should pursue incremental change that the public can get behind (private jet emissions charges and such) before pursuing incremental change that the public is hesitant to make when people suggesting the change are the biggest polluters comparatively. Honestly just think about it. You really think it’s fruitful to try to start solving this problem by convincing someone that they need to no longer use a gas stove when “insert billionaire” is flying around on a private jet? It’s a non-starter. It reeks of injustice even if it’s the right thing to do and the public will instead of cooperate will fight tooth and nail until perceived justice is accomplished.

nuancebydefault 4y ago
Sorry i guess i misunderstood. Okay the incrementalness is not the thing. The thing is more, the injustice, the unevenness so to say. Well, I think we should not try to solve the injustice problem and the environmental problem with the same measures. For every rule, there will be people that break it, does that mean nobody should follow that rule? Also, for every form or quantity of pollution, there are heavier forms. The jet owner will say that the old-aeroplane-collector or a war in a neighboring country pollutes more. My point is, following that kind of reasoning, it will be almost impossible to take any action.
- ericmay 4y ago
  I get it. But what I’m saying is that when you walk up to someone and say “sorry turn off that gas stove” and then they go and read an article like this [1] you will not just get inaction you’ll get outright action against solving the problem. So yea, we won’t see much in the way of serious action because the general public does not see the justice in making changes or sacrifices even though they should and will bear the worst of the consequences. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/01/private-jet-sales-likely-to-reach-highest-ever-level-this-year-report-says https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/01/private-jet-sa...
  - nuancebydefault 4y ago
    You are right, it is even infuriating. It is also infuriating that rich people are allowed to build a huge machine that is set to self destruct soon after take off, generating multi tons of co2 and other air, water and soil pollution. Still,climate change is a problem worth trying to solve.